Order | Filed: August 14, 2026
| Entered: August 14, 2026
Davis v. American Alternative Insurance Corporation et al
Insurance | Oregon
1 - Scheduling
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of letters outlining a six-part discovery dispute between the parties (attached). The Court ORDERS as follows:
As to Items 1, 3, and 4, the Court orders the parties to file short briefs (no more than 15 pages total) addressing these issues. As to Item 1, Plaintiff should address why she believes OCE 503(2)(d) does not apply to the items at issue. As to Item 3, the parties should address the relevancy of this information in light of the significant body of caselaw addressing the discoverability of reserves information. See Metro Life. Ins. v. Ogandzhanova, No. CV-12-372-PHX-GMS, 2013 WL 1442581 (D. Ariz. Apr. 9, 2013). And as to Item 4, the Court generally finds that the information is relevant and discoverable, but Defendants indicate in their letter that they have already provided Mr. Cook's claim file to Plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore must address what information she believes is still outstanding. Plaintiff's brief is due by Friday, August 21. Defendants' response brief is due Friday, August 28.
As to Item 2, the Court finds that Defendants' privilege logs are insufficient for Plaintiff or the Court to determine whether the information is indeed protected by attorney-client privilege. Defendant must update their privilege logs to include the following information: (1) the specific attorney and client involved, (2) the nature of the document/communication, (3) all persons or entities having received or sent the document/communication, (4) any other persons having been informed of the document or communication's substance, (5) the date of the document/ communication, (6) the Bates number or location of the document/communication, and (7) the subject matter of the document and basis for withholding (without so much detail as to destroy the privilege).
As to Items 5 and 6, the Court finds that Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production have been insufficiently specific. Defendants must revisit each of their responses to Plaintiff's interrogatories and identify specific records responsive to each interrogatoryand not merely reference the entire 7,000-page claim fileas required by Rule 33(d) and/or provide more complete narrative answers. Similarly, Defendants must revisit their responses to Plaintiff's request for production and reference the specific documents produced (by Bates number, as appropriate), and whether any materials are withheld and the basis for their withholding with specific reference to a privilege log.
Defendants must supplement their discovery related to items 2, 5, and 6 by September 4, 2026. Ordered by Judge Amy M. Baggio. (Attachments: (1) Plaintiff's Letter, (2) Defendant's Letter, (3) Update Letter) (jp)